Authentifizierungsstatus

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'shows' status and method, but does not disclose what the response contains, whether authentication is required to call it, what methods are covered (cookie, JWT, etc.), or any error conditions. The description adds minimal value beyond the title.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about how the authentication status might be used (e.g., before performing authenticated actions) and what the output denotes, so the agent may not know what to expect from the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description correctly does not attempt to explain parameters, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4 since nothing is needed to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('zeigt' / shows) and resource ('aktuellen Authentifizierungsstatus und -methode'), giving a specific purpose. It distinguishes from JWT-specific siblings by covering the general authentication status and method, but does not explicitly mention whether it refers to the current user or the site's auth configuration, leaving some ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like jwt_validate or wp_get_current_user. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.